On August 31 2012 15:13 SnK-Arcbound wrote: If I remember correctly the debt commission couldn't come to an agreement on everything. Half of them (or some number) proceeded to make all their recommendations known that were in the report that was written but that not all of them signed off on by making it public, sending it to the president, house, and senate.
Correct, there was no official report from the Debt Commission.
Well Since everyone seems to be using factcheck, I might as well too.
from their article on Ryan's speech
"Like Ryan, Obama thanked the commission in a Dec. 3, 2010, statement that promised to “study closely” its proposals for possible inclusion in his own budget plans. Nine months later, Obama submitted a deficit reduction plan to the Joint Select Committee on Deficit Reduction that was designed to reduce the deficit by $3.6 trillion over 10 years through a package of spending cuts and tax hikes."
So clearly, the debt commision came up with a report outlining proposals that Obama did in fact see. Now as far as 'doing exactly nothing' technically Obama did do exactly nothing with that proposal, he made his own deficit reduction plan that could have been influenced by the report (i don't know). But still, Ryan technically didn't lie. he DEFINITELY had extremely misleading comments, but lied? not really.
The fact check article only states that Obama created this commission and then later submitted his own plan. It wasn't the Debt Commission's plan, because they never came up with one they agreed with. The Debt Commission failed. There was no official bipartisan report from that commission.
Of course there ws no official bipartisan report, but there was a report. Like I said, I am not agreeing with Ryan, I am just trying to show that he didn't lie, which he did not. He is just ridiciulosly misleading.
It's like PR spin,technically that spin is true, by leaving out key information or through clever wording you can make it sound better/worse than it really is. It's still true, just not the entire story. If I say 'Under President Obama the deficit reached it's highest level in American history' It kind of sounds like I am blaming Obama, but really I am not. If I tried a lot harder I can make it sound like he is responsible without actually saying he is responsible.
So what you are saying is Romney didn't lie, but purposely mislead and deceived the public. (not saying most don't do the same) Isn't lying and deceiving along the same lines? Just trying to point out that if he "lied" or not is not the point.
Well this was referring to Ryan's speech, not Romney's (have yet to watch his speech so not sure what happened there). And no, lying and deceiving are not along the same lines. lying can destroy your representation since what you say has no basis in truth, deceiving is spin and does have basis in truth, and all politicians do it (maybe not to the level of Ryan's speech, but still to some level).
On August 31 2012 15:29 Zaqwert wrote: If at this point the only thing Obama supporters think will save Hopey McChangey at this point is "ZOMG RYAN! ZOMG Factory! Ryan said something about a factory that wasn't true! Pay no attention to the epic failure and disappoint of the past 4 years, did you hear Ryan said something misleading about a random factory??!"
This country is f'ing doomed. Nobody discusses real problems or solutions, it's all stupid soundbites and "gotchas"
ZOMG Obama said "you didn't build it!" etc.
I would have hoped people on this forum weren't in that lowest common denominator that politicians pander to, but yet even here people spout the same tired useless junk.
You seem angry. You add nothing to the thread AND you indirectly call people stupid. Good job.
What's the epic failure exactly and how could it have been avoided? Maybe that is something you could add to the discussion instead of acting like a butthurt prick.
On August 31 2012 15:13 SnK-Arcbound wrote: If I remember correctly the debt commission couldn't come to an agreement on everything. Half of them (or some number) proceeded to make all their recommendations known that were in the report that was written but that not all of them signed off on by making it public, sending it to the president, house, and senate.
Correct, there was no official report from the Debt Commission.
Well Since everyone seems to be using factcheck, I might as well too.
from their article on Ryan's speech
"Like Ryan, Obama thanked the commission in a Dec. 3, 2010, statement that promised to “study closely” its proposals for possible inclusion in his own budget plans. Nine months later, Obama submitted a deficit reduction plan to the Joint Select Committee on Deficit Reduction that was designed to reduce the deficit by $3.6 trillion over 10 years through a package of spending cuts and tax hikes."
So clearly, the debt commision came up with a report outlining proposals that Obama did in fact see. Now as far as 'doing exactly nothing' technically Obama did do exactly nothing with that proposal, he made his own deficit reduction plan that could have been influenced by the report (i don't know). But still, Ryan technically didn't lie. he DEFINITELY had extremely misleading comments, but lied? not really.
The fact check article only states that Obama created this commission and then later submitted his own plan. It wasn't the Debt Commission's plan, because they never came up with one they agreed with. The Debt Commission failed. There was no official bipartisan report from that commission.
Of course there was no official bipartisan report, but there was a report.
What report?
From whom?
To argue what Ryan said wasn't a lie is taking semantics to such lengths that we could argue the subjectivity of each word. Like Clinton defining what "is" means.
An outline of proposals from the debt commision is what it sounds like in the fact checker article when Obama and Ryan thanked the Commission. obviously since I wasn't there I can't comment on what the actual specifics were that it contained or what you would actually call it but until I see something that states otherwise, it is pretty clear that there was something there. If you want to call Ryan a hypocrite or a misleading asshole I really don't care and I'd use those terms myself, i am trying to drive home the point that spin =/= lies. If people want to criticize Ryan, that criticism should be based in truth, spin it to your hearts content, but the truth should still be present, criticism based on lies is misleading to voters and that's not what we need.
I admit this part of his speech was the biggest spin he had, but more minor ones like his comments about the GM plant being called lies is just way too extreme.
As much as I would like to continue talking about this, it is getting late and I am getting tired so I will have to continue this later.
On August 31 2012 11:47 xDaunt wrote: All these democrats and liberals crapping on American exceptionalism in this thread.... And they wonder why conservatives question their patriotism.
I hate American exceptionalism, its nationalism with a thin veneer covering it.
That said, go America, we're fucking awesome and fuck any conservative who questions my patriotism!
Exactly - it's nationalism because "exceptionalism" puts Americans above all other countries.
Patriotism is the love for one's country but without the extreme "America #1" stuff.
On August 31 2012 09:48 kwizach wrote: [quote] That is what they did. Or do you in mind any other individual policy enacted under Bush or Obama that had a bigger impact?
Ignoring changes in the economy the Bush tax cuts and wars explained about 1/3 of the change in the budget situation from 2001 to 2011. The CBPP report either ignores the other 2/3 factors or includes it in the tax cuts and wars (interest).
You realize that the only two specific policies that appear on that graph are the Bush tax cuts and the wars, right?
You realize that's irrelevant, right?
You realize that the reason it's not irrelevant is that it's precisely what the article is about, namely pointing out the impact of the policies of the Bush and Obama administrations that weighted and will weight the most on the deficit?
So if the Bush tax cuts were passed one bit at a time we could ignore their impact on the deficit?
Is there something called the "Bush tax cuts", or is that a made-up term for something fictional? Since they exist, their impact can be evaluated. That's what the article did.
Their impact can certainly be evaluated. I'm pointing out that their evaluation was faulty.
$1 in Bush tax cuts and war cannot be assumed to be $1 in new deficits. If you want to make that assumption it must be justified. The article does not justify it, neither do you.
Their evaluation was not faulty. Nobody is saying that $1 in Bush tax cuts = $1 in deficits. The point the article makes is that the scope of their impact is sufficient to greatly reduce the deficit if they were to disappear (all other things being equal).
The point of the article is to make the Bush tax cuts and wars look more responsible for the deficits than they really are.
If the point of the article was to argue for the removal of the Bush tax cuts because they are bad, then the article would have bothered to explain why the tax cuts are bad.
No, it is to show exactly how responsible for the deficit they really are, in response to people saying Obama's policies are responsible for the deficit. And it does just that.
The only person that caught my attention long enough while I channel flipped through annoying speeches was Jeb Bush. I hope this man will be President one day. (for any Euros out there mystified at electing another Bush, this apple fell far from the tree, overshadowing even his mild dad)
My ideal honorable center-right politician but I admit I am centrist lover at heart.
On August 31 2012 11:47 xDaunt wrote: All these democrats and liberals crapping on American exceptionalism in this thread.... And they wonder why conservatives question their patriotism.
I hate American exceptionalism, its nationalism with a thin veneer covering it.
That said, go America, we're fucking awesome and fuck any conservative who questions my patriotism!
Exactly - it's nationalism because "exceptionalism" puts Americans above all other countries.
Patriotism is the love for one's country but without the extreme "America #1" stuff.
Since the point has come up, let me express my personal opinions regarding American Exceptionalism and my patriotism. Notice that these are only my personal reasons; I don't profess to speak for everyone.
From what I see and here, subscribing to "American Exceptionalism" too often feels like one has to assume that anything done in America is the best in the world for the sole virtue of being American. To me, that feels far too much like taking something on blind faith and not questioning it; simply accepting that because it's American it must therefore be good, and by extention, everyone else in the world would be better off copying what we do because it's clearly the best. Put another way, it seems to simply take America's blessings for granted and never think about why or how it is that we came to have those blessings.
I want America to be the best it possibly can be. I want our democratic system to be the best we can make it, I want our health care system to be the envy of the world. I want America to keep that spirit that propelled it to perhaps the highest pinnacle in its history as a nation - and because I want to see America on top, I have to follow my conscience and call out faults where I see them. American Exceptionalism assumes that we'll find a way to make our system work and it won't be like anything else in the world, ignoring the fact that sometimes good ideas do happen elsewhere. We don't have to just copy what other nations do; it's silly to assume that, but is it really so wrong to step back and say, "Hey, our health care system seems to have some pretty significant cracks. Is there anything we can do to make this work better?" Our electoral politics are multibillion-dollar multi-year processes that have grown and grown and grown in length since the Second World War. We trust one another less and find less common ground as reflected in the poisonous language of our politics. Our system for electing the President has the unfortunate side-effect of making a vote in one state worth more than a vote in another - a Republican in California or a Democrat in Tennessee probably feels like they're just shouting into a hurricane.
America has faults. Maybe those faults are harder to see from the inside, but our system isn't perfect. No human government CAN be perfect, but there's lots of room to improve our own, and if a better idea on X happens to come from Germany or Japan or Turkey, what's wrong with trying to use that experience and knowledge to improve our system? Or, for that matter, can't we try something new if it looks like the old isn't working out? We tried some pretty radical stuff in our history. The textbooks have a tendency to smooth the rough periods out, but things have changed a lot, yet it seems like there's a powerful aversion to change of any kind in modern years, and this insistence that 'doing things the way we've always done them' and 'making the rest of the world more like America' are hurting more than they help. We CAN be the best nation in the world, but that's not something inherent to being American. It should be because our government was founded in a way that left the door open for changes in the future.
Main TV News in Germany said "every four years the USA shows how grotesque they elect their leader" and that is what exactly happened in the past days.
Now that i just watched the speech of Romney in Tampa i am disgusted. Lesser because Romney, more because of the people who cheer for him. Those people are the reason why other countries often laugh at the USA. They just seem to be uneducated, silly, aggressive douches. You can't take them seriously.
Fortunately the Reps are so far off of reality this time that Obama will have no problem with being re-elected.
On August 31 2012 14:48 Leporello wrote: I can't wait until Romney has to debate Obama over the Affordable Healthcare Act. That's going to be a real eye-opener for some people, Romney fans most of all. All Obama has to do is to say, "Thank you Romney, for providing this country the first healthcare plan centered around mandating insurance. We've appreciated using your ideas."
Federal government vs state government issue. That's definitely how I see it; however, you're right in saying that most people who support Romney are also blindly against 'government health care."
I'm curious why conservatives have such hate for mass transit, as evinced in the 'F' grade due to the high-speed rail proposals. The Shinkansen (Japan's famous bullet train) is absolutely amazing and I have no idea why it's a political anathema to conservatives. Granted, my personal view is shaped by where I live and how vital train travel is to me, but it saddens me that there's nothing even remotely close back at home - coming from one of the few people who actually rode AMTRAK on a regular basis.
I don't see how a high speed rail system really fits anywhere into the America lifestyle. Lowspeed trains and buses do a good job of getting people into and out of metro areas as it is right now. Building up a high speed rail system would cost a fortune and provide very little new services.
Basically, where would this train take you? Not enough people would use it for it to be worthwile.
In california they want to build a rail that can take you from LA to SF in two hours, you can be damn sure id use it
On August 31 2012 17:25 Anta wrote: Main TV News in Germany said "every four years the USA shows how grotesque they elect their leader" and that is what exactly happened in the past days.
Now that i just watched the speech of Romney in Tampa i am disgusted. Lesser because Romney, more because of the people who cheer for him. Those people are the reason why other countries often laugh at the USA. They just seem to be uneducated, silly, aggressive douches. You can't take them seriously.
Fortunately the Reps are so far off of reality this time that Obama will have no problem with being re-elected.
Yep, i actually feel real disgust when lissening to what the Reps (or at least the prominet ones int his election) spew out. I just can't understnad how any educated human being that is not either totally selfish (and allready in a good position) or downright retarded can vote for these guys.
I actually kinda like libertarians, they go to far and i see it as kinda proven that nothing good happens if you let companies/business/market "roam free" and don't make certain things mandatory (like healthcare).... But the Republicans right now? They are either religious zealots or/and the stereotype rich narcistic guy that walks over corpses to get his way...
staggering. --
High speed rail: It's really, really good for those "kinda long" distances were a car ride takes an eternity and the plane is still not really fast because of the whole boarding proceeding/starting/landing, it's also better for the enviroment and in general just really, really good for transport from city to city because it, contrary to the plane, can bring you right into the centre of it. Naturally it's pretty pointless in rural areas (as is everything aside from a car...).
On August 31 2012 05:50 kwizach wrote: [quote] Your answer to what? The change, yes. The sole reason the deficit is this big, no. The graph isn't about the 2008 change, it's about the deficit.
[quote] You keep changing the argument. I already answered this. "If your question is now why are they singled out in the graph, I guess one would have to look at the original article to see the objective and argument of the writer, but chances are that he/she wanted to point out specific policies that can/will more or less easily be stopped/overturned (and possibly see the legacy of specific Bush policies). You can't really erase social security from existence."
The reason the deficit exists is the cumulative result of all tax and spend policies. That includes all taxes and all expenditures. You can't single out specific ones as the cause.
Are you even reading what I'm writing?! Nobody is saying they're the only cause. They're simply being singled out and analyzed as one of the factors. Like I already said, "if your question is now why are they singled out in the graph, I guess one would have to look at the original article to see the objective and argument of the writer, but chances are that he/she wanted to point out specific policies that can/will more or less easily be stopped/overturned (and possibly see the legacy of specific Bush policies). You can't really erase social security from existence".
On August 31 2012 06:06 JonnyBNoHo wrote: The reason the deficit changed from a recent low of $160B in 2007 to where it is today can only be explained by changes in the economy and changes to government tax and spend policy.
I already answered this. Nobody is saying that the tax cuts and the wars are the independent variable responsible for the change. Why do you keep making that argument? "The graph isn't about the 2008 change, it's about the deficit" and the factors contributing to the deficit.
On August 31 2012 06:06 JonnyBNoHo wrote: Advocating that some policies should be changed is a different argument and not the intent of the original source. The source was blaming the deficit on the wars and tax cuts.
The original source points to four factors that contributed and/or are projected to contribute to the deficit: the economic downturn, the financial rescues (limited impact), and Bush-era policies of tax cuts and wars. You can read it here.
On August 31 2012 06:06 JonnyBNoHo wrote: Moreover, the original article blames future deficits on tax policies the Bush administration never made. The Bush tax cuts expired at the end of 2010 - you cannot blame their extension on an administration out of office!
Considering it's way harder politically to remove/fail to renew tax cuts than to enact them, I'd say it does deserve a part of the blame. Anyway, if we look at what the parties were advocating at the end of 2010, the Democrats wanted to keep the tax cuts for the poor & middle-class, while the Republicans wanted to keep them for the rich (and let's say also for the poor & middle class). Since the Republicans were the only ones that wanted to keep them for the rich, we can therefore blame them for the loss in revenue of that part of the Bush tax cuts since the end of 2010.
Again, the Bush tax cuts and wars contribute to the deficit in no manner that is any different from any other tax cut or spending program that already existed. There is no cause to include them in the graph other than 'you want to.'
The report answers a claim. As written in the first paragraph,
"Some lawmakers, pundits, and others continue to say that President George W. Bush’s policies did not drive the projected federal deficits of the coming decade — that, instead, it was the policies of President Obama and Congress in 2009 and 2010. But, the fact remains: the economic downturn, President Bush’s tax cuts and the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq explain virtually the entire deficit over the next ten years".
It is therefore specifically interested in policies, and even more specifically in the policies that have been enacted more or less recently (during the Obama and Bush administrations) and that have had a considerable impact on the deficit. Turns out that the Bush policies that were mentioned are the ones that had the biggest impact. Therefore, the report presents its data to show that without those policies, the deficit would be much lower.
On August 31 2012 07:29 JonnyBNoHo wrote: Why not replace wars and Bush tax cuts with interest payments,
Not a policy.
agricultural subsidies, alternative energy subsidies, GM's NOL gift, the TSA, the Homeland Security Department, the PATRIOT act,
Not as big an impact.
and Medicare Part D?
Addressed on p. 9 of the report: "In short, we did not include the costs of the prescription-drug program in this analysis because we could not estimate those net costs with the same confidence that we could estimate costs, based on CBO analyses, for other Bush-era policies — namely, the tax cuts and the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan".
On August 31 2012 07:29 JonnyBNoHo wrote: The article is also not saying that the Bush tax cuts and wars were included for arbitrary reasons. They are arguing that the Bush tax cuts and wars are responsible for the deficit.
If not for the tax cuts enacted during the presidency of George W. Bush that Congress did not pay for, the cost of the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan that were initiated during that period, and the effects of the worst economic slump since the Great Depression (including the cost of steps necessary to combat it), we would not be facing these huge deficits in the near term.
Heck just look at the title of the article:
Critics Still Wrong on What’s Driving Deficits in Coming Years Economic Downturn, Financial Rescues, and Bush-Era Policies Drive the Numbers
The word driving implies cause.
The Bush tax cuts and the wars are among the causes of the deficit. Since the report is interested in the recent policies that had the biggest impact, they came out on top.
The entire methodology the article is using is wrong.
You can't arbitrarily take a portion of spending or tax cuts and declare them 100% deficit financed. You need some valid logical reason to do that. The article does not give one.
The article looks at the policies enacted under the Bush and Obama administrations that have individually had the highest impact on the deficit, and they look at the impact they have had and will have. It turns out that the policies with the highest impact are the Bush tax cuts and the wars. The article proceeds to show that by adding the costs of these policies, the next in line (the recovery measures) and the economic downturn, you basically get the entire deficit. Are you contesting the numbers, or are you simply unhappy that the policies with the highest impact were enacted under Bush? If that's the problem, you should blame Bush, not the article.
That's not what they did!
They just took 5 line items out of a CBO report and chucked them into a graph that 'explains' the deficit.
That is what they did. Or do you in mind any other individual policy enacted under Bush or Obama that had a bigger impact?
Ignoring changes in the economy the Bush tax cuts and wars explained about 1/3 of the change in the budget situation from 2001 to 2011. The CBPP report either ignores the other 2/3 factors or includes it in the tax cuts and wars (interest).
The CBPP report is looking at the effects of the Obama and Bush administration on the deficit. It singles out the Bush tax cuts and the economic downturn and the wars, etc, because these are the policies and events of the Bush and Obama administration. And it does so to show that it's not Obama's fault that the budget got blown up, blame Bush.
Now, they could have made that stacked graph in some other way, e.g. they could have broken it up in 4 stacks: 1) the cost of electricity for running government buildings, 2) the cost of unemployment benefits, 3) the cost of paying for police, 4) everything else. This would not be invalid. But this would not be an informative graph, because (a) these factors are minor, (b) these factors do not attribute blame (who should I blame for the amount of electricity the government uses?), (c) these factors are not really fixable (the government can't suddenly cease the usage of electricity).
Showing the Bush tax cuts, and whatever else was on the graph is informative because: (a) these factors are not minor, (b) blame is attributable -- it's Bush's fault, (c) these factors are fixable (repeal the Bush tax cuts). It allows for the reader to conclude as follows: "The Bush tax cuts are one of the most expensive parts of the budget, if we eliminated it and ended the war, and if we had not had a global financial crisis, then the budget would almost be balanced. Thus, it's all Bush's fault, not Obama's fault."
Had they produced the graph as I had suggested above, the only conclusion would be: "compared the the size of the deficit, the cost of electricity and police is virtually nothing, the cost of unemployment benefits is not relatively large, but if we ended government by cutting everything in the "everything else" category, then the budget would be in surplus."
The graph in your post shows that the Bush tax cuts is the most significant contributor to the deficit. Do you dispute the fact that Bush' blew up the budget then the GFC blew it up again?
On August 31 2012 11:47 xDaunt wrote: All these democrats and liberals crapping on American exceptionalism in this thread.... And they wonder why conservatives question their patriotism.
I hate American exceptionalism, its nationalism with a thin veneer covering it.
That said, go America, we're fucking awesome and fuck any conservative who questions my patriotism!
Exactly - it's nationalism because "exceptionalism" puts Americans above all other countries.
Patriotism is the love for one's country but without the extreme "America #1" stuff.
Patriotism is bullshit. It's not just American patriotism or exceptionalism, but all patriotism. It's all bullshit. It's basically fanboyism, an irrational love for some brand. Of course, you can be proud of your country for the good that it does, but that doesn't mean that anything that is American (or from any other country) is automatically awesome. You can be proud of your achievements, but you should not be proud of a country simply because you're born in it. No one chooses where they are born. Be proud of it when it does good, criticize it when it doesn't.
The mantra of "We Built It" at the Republican Convention was almost unbelievable. Yes, they are the party of individual gain over collective care, but still some of the things they were saying made no sense. They were trying to argue as if Mitt Romney built his entire fortune without any help and that only he is responsible for his success. Mitt Romney wasn't born in rags and worked himself to riches. Even if you decide to forget about the national infrastructure that supported him every step of the way, at a minimum as a politician that message is ludicrous. Sure politicians make laws and so on, but they do it for the people. Are we supposed to say that Mitt Romney "built Massachusetts" when he was Governor there? He didn't have any help, not even from the people who voted for him? What about the economy in the United States that made it possible for him to hide money oversees and ship jobs oversees? He didn't make those laws, rather the corporate-friendly economy in the US made those things possible.
On August 31 2012 20:02 Sumahi wrote: The mantra of "We Built It" at the Republican Convention was almost unbelievable. Yes, they are the party of individual gain over collective care, but still some of the things they were saying made no sense. They were trying to argue as if Mitt Romney built his entire fortune without any help and that only he is responsible for his success. Mitt Romney wasn't born in rags and worked himself to riches. Even if you decide to forget about the national infrastructure that supported him every step of the way, at a minimum as a politician that message is ludicrous. Sure politicians make laws and so on, but they do it for the people. Are we supposed to say that Mitt Romney "built Massachusetts" when he was Governor there? He didn't have any help, not even from the people who voted for him? What about the economy in the United States that made it possible for him to hide money oversees and ship jobs oversees? He didn't make those laws, rather the corporate-friendly economy in the US made those things possible.
On August 31 2012 11:47 xDaunt wrote: All these democrats and liberals crapping on American exceptionalism in this thread.... And they wonder why conservatives question their patriotism.
I hate American exceptionalism, its nationalism with a thin veneer covering it.
That said, go America, we're fucking awesome and fuck any conservative who questions my patriotism!
Exactly - it's nationalism because "exceptionalism" puts Americans above all other countries.
Patriotism is the love for one's country but without the extreme "America #1" stuff.
Patriotism is bullshit. It's not just American patriotism or exceptionalism, but all patriotism. It's all bullshit. It's basically fanboyism, an irrational love for some brand. Of course, you can be proud of your country for the good that it does, but that doesn't mean that anything that is American (or from any other country) is automatically awesome. You can be proud of your achievements, but you should not be proud of a country simply because you're born in it. No one chooses where they are born. Be proud of it when it does good, criticize it when it doesn't.
I disagree with that notion. Love for one's country - real patriotism - includes the duty to criticize when things take a turn for the worse and you think the country is on the wrong track(go to war/spend too much/whatever).
And i also would say that a country and the people living in it with their language, culture, history... is a bit above some random brand.
On August 31 2012 11:47 xDaunt wrote: All these democrats and liberals crapping on American exceptionalism in this thread.... And they wonder why conservatives question their patriotism.
I hate American exceptionalism, its nationalism with a thin veneer covering it.
That said, go America, we're fucking awesome and fuck any conservative who questions my patriotism!
Exactly - it's nationalism because "exceptionalism" puts Americans above all other countries.
Patriotism is the love for one's country but without the extreme "America #1" stuff.
Patriotism is bullshit. It's not just American patriotism or exceptionalism, but all patriotism. It's all bullshit. It's basically fanboyism, an irrational love for some brand. Of course, you can be proud of your country for the good that it does, but that doesn't mean that anything that is American (or from any other country) is automatically awesome. You can be proud of your achievements, but you should not be proud of a country simply because you're born in it. No one chooses where they are born. Be proud of it when it does good, criticize it when it doesn't.
I disagree with that notion. Love for one's country - real patriotism - includes the duty to criticize when things take a turn for the worse and you think the country is on the wrong track(go to war/spend too much/whatever).
And i also would say that a country and the people living in it with their language, culture, history... is a bit above some random brand.
But it is a random brand. You're randomly born into a country without any choice of which.
for those in your country who can read... no offence but it seems like republicans can't - and that's a fucking lot. could also be that they just don't care about facts...
EPT![[image loading]](http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/thumb/f/f9/Cause_of_change_in_U.S._debt_position_2001-2011.png/640px-Cause_of_change_in_U.S._debt_position_2001-2011.png)
